United States District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the man presiding over the class-action lawsuit against Trump University, is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and oversaw the gift of a law school scholarship to an illegal alien.

In his 2011 judicial questionnaire to become a federal judge, Curiel revealed his history with La Raza. GotNews.com originally reported this Tuesday, and The Daily Caller has independently verified. (continued here at dailycaller.com)

Now that Donald Trump is the presumed nominee, much of the mainstream media is now coming out with their knives, hoping to help H. Clinton can take him down. Hence they are hoping they can use the Trump University lawsuits to their advantage.

Perhaps we need to use our imaginations in self-defense.

Translated, “la raza” means “the race.” Imagine the outcry if white attorneys from Mississippi, such as this author, started a a legal association called “The Race” with the stated mission to promote the interest of white, Southern communities. Hollywood stars and entertainers, such as Bryan Adams, would boycott the state in perpetuity. (from here at breitbart.com)

Trump University has not been open since 2010 (from here). So why the lawsuits have yet to be settled is a puzzle. Nevertheless, press coverage of the story back in 2011 suggests Trump’s presidential aspirations were anticipated.

Was Trump University legitimate? I don’t know. I don’t trust the press coverage, and I don’t see much reason to trust that judge.

When it comes to the subject of race and sex in this country, we have grown more irrational, not less. Consider today’s historic event surrounding H. Clinton’s presidential campaign.

It’s worth stopping and reflecting on this point: Faced with a man who changes his policies on a dime, who has dispensed with any normal semblance of a campaign, it is the woman — the first woman, possibly —who will be positioned as the reliable one.

This is not subtext. It’s in the text of the speech Clinton gave last week directly taking on Trump’s foreign policy, such as it is. “We cannot let him roll the dice with America,” Clinton said. She added, “Do we want him making those calls – someone thin-skinned and quick to anger, who lashes out at the smallest criticism? Do we want his finger anywhere near the button?” She presented herself as the battle-tested candidate, the deliberative one: “Unlike him, I have some experience with the tough calls and the hard work of statecraft.” So much for the danger of letting a lady have the nuclear codes. Clinton might as well have accused him of going through male menopause. (from here at msnbc.com)

The fact H. Clinton is under a FBI criminal investigation is not a big deal to the news media. The fact she is notoriously incompetent doesn’t seem to matter. Even the fact she only has the delegates she needs to sew up the nomination because of super-delegates does not rob H. Clinton of her historic moment. What matters is that she is a woman. What matters is that the Democrat news media wants H. Clinton, and they don’t want Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. So they cannot be trusted to report the news without bias.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. — Martin Luther King, Jr. (from here)

What is odd about the fact Republicans don’t meet Democrats on their own ground is that the Democrats are more obviously bigots. However, most of the news media is behind the Democratic Party. So I suppose most politicians find fighting Democrats on their own ground intimidating.

Who is this “Mexican Judge” and how is he “affiliated with a law firm that has contracts with Clinton organization”? There are no federal district judges (or, for that matter, federal judges at any level) who are citizens of other countries, and there are no federal judges with affiliations with law firms. When you take the bench, you cannot continue to practice with law firms.

So, to be quite clear about it, there is no “Mexican Judge” and no “affiliation” with “a law firm that has contracts with Clinton organization” as you stated in your comment at 2328 hours on 07 June. So, the question becomes: why did you say these things?

Thanks for your input. That is what I interpreted when I read and heard on the Bill O’Reilly show. Frankly, I am so accustomed to reading about political involvvments public officials have in order to become a judge. I still wonder though, how anyone can judge impartially when their position has been obtained by an affiliation with any political group.

Thanks for your correction. Now I know whatever the judge decided has no bearing on his political affiliations by law.

Frankly though, I think KIng Solomon’s ancient proverb would work better today when two parties, who can afford to pay to extend legal battles to be drawn out.

“Tell them to decide this issue yearly by drawing lots from the pocket of your robe, and let Yahweh decide for them. Since no man can know the outcome of a lot, the chancy process will be the will of Yahweh.” The lot is cast into the pocket, but the verdict is wholly from Yahweh. (Proverb 16:33)

The case was in Curiel’s hands long before The Donald announced his candidacy. I am told by people who understand the law that there is nothing wrong with the ruling. Even if there was, what’s in question here is Trump’s erratic character.
He’s not exactly the great communicator. He says something outrageous and then expect his followers to bend themselves into pretzels trying to explain it away. This is not leadership.
Yep, Hillary belongs in prison. The Donald belongs to a mental institution.

Well, I suspect lots of us belong in mental institutions. How did we managed to select D. Trump and H. Clinton as our prime candidates?

Given the reporter in the video above was determined to get him to admit to racial bias, Trump defended himself well enough.

What I know is that this Trump University thing has dragged on for years. Justice delayed is justice denied. Therefore, one of the prime tasks of a judge must be to bring each case before his court to a timely conclusion. How many years should it take to resolve a case like this?

How did we manage to select..? Well, we know about the Democrats. I honestly hope that Trump will deflate either before the convention or after. I’ll vote for Walker or Jindal or whoever they (the delegates or even the establishment) will put in his place. Will not, cannot vote for Trump.

Trump has the nomination at this point. I suppose he could have a heart attack, but his deflating is unlikely. So we have a choice. Trump or the Clintons. Not voting or voting for a third party candidate is effectively a vote for the Clintons.

Actually, he doesn’t have the nomination. If we refuse to back him and ask the delegates to unbound themselves and vote their consciousness, he won’t get it.
Moreover, this whole “chose your poison” thing is not working on me. I will vote for neither.

The defendants spent millions of dollars to destroy me and my business so that I could not collect. They didn’t succeed. but a hard-left appellate court did their work for them. The judges discovered that I was a conservative, after I made a discovery about President Obama that had Limbaugh and Hannity and Jake Tapper talking. The timing of this short burst of fame was bad; the appellate court (who had just made an illegal ruling to keep Hillary out of jail) turned its attention to me. We had risked everything, and won … and then lost.

Not getting enough rest, I suppose. That should have been: Anyone who thinks some of our politicians are not perfectly happy to appoint corrupt judges just doesn’t get it, or they just don’t want to admit it.

My experience is a small sample, admittedly. There are, at any one time, hundreds of federal judges at the trial and appellate level. Over a forty-year career I’ve probably appeared before maybe 100 of them. Clearly some are better than others, but I have never been able to discern a partisan template as to which judges are great, good, indifferent, bad and awful. I have practiced before federal judges at all levels of the federal judiciary, judges appointed by both parties, by every president from Eisenhower to Obama, and have won more than I have lost. But I have lost. So I know how that feels. But I can’t think of any one of these judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court, where I felt my client’s case was being evaluated on a political, as opposed to a legal basis.

In any event, the Trump attack was a nasty, anti-American, anti-constitutional outburst of disrespect. There’s no defense for it. Trump has gotten some favorable rulings and unfavorable rulings out of Judge Curiel. That’s just kind of the way the cookie crumbles in litigation. He wasted time when he could have been attacking Hillary Clinton on points for which she was vulnerable (the IG report is the obvious example, and this business with Laureate University). Instead he brought a matter that has no national political significance, that is about his private affairs only, into the spotlight in a way that demeans the American ideal that Americans are Americans. We come from everywhere, but what unites us is our American identity. It’s bad when anyone tracks mud over that principle. It’s incomprehensible that anyone who wants to be President of this country would do this.

I am not keen to defend Trump, and what he said was bad. Nevertheless, those who voluntarily associate themselves with a racist organization do leave open the question of interpretation of law flavored with racial overtones. One of our Supreme Court justices noted that her Latina focus (including background with La Raza) gave her the ability to better interpret law that an old white guy would have. This “wise Latina” bit was clearly racial (if not racist) and caused some raised eyebrows or raised hackles at the time, depending upon which side of the political aisle one occupied.

The media regularly interpret and assume political positions based upon race. To the Left, those whose positions do NOT match racial stereotypes are considered (and often loudly called) “race traitors.” This is about as racist as one would care to see, it seems to me: You are not allowed to not fit the race definition.

It is also unfortunate that our sitting president does this, as do many of his key staffers. President Obama is the most racist president since Woodrow Wilson — and racism was more fashionable back in Wilson’s day.

Sadly, racism on the part of blacks has become fashionable, ingrained, and a tremendous detriment to the advancement of blacks as part of American society. But to have our president willfully participate in it, wallow in it, and fan it among the people he leads is sad indeed. Even Wilson was not vocal on the national scene about his ideas of black people.

Lyndon Johnson was close to this level of racism, but he too kept it a fairly private matter. He seemed to think that calling his serving staff “my niggers” in their presence would endear him to them, and to his guests. Now it seems that this form of address has gained currency among blacks, and is bleeding (associated too often with real blood) into the rest of American society.

I think novascout and lots of other Liberal Democrats have blinders. Given the current emphasis on identity politics, how difficult is it to find examples of racism? The only difference these days is that guilt-ridden and greedy whites have combined with non-whites and various other minorities to raid the federal treasury and gain various advantage.

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.